September 9, 2025 • 17 mins
How do leaders invite productive conflict? Most leaders avoid workplace conflict, then wonder why teams never bring them the truth until it's too late.
In this final Conflict IQ episode, discover the advanced skill that separates good leaders from great ones: actively inviting disagreement to strengthen team performance. Learn specific language patterns that encourage honest pushback and practical tools for creating environments where the best ideas emerge from anywhere on your team.
What You'll Learn
- The counterintuitive truth about real leadership courage
- Research-backed insights on productive disagreement from communication experts
- Specific phrases that actually invite disagreement (beyond "any questions?")
- How to create systematic safety for disagreement in your team culture
- Real CEO stories showing how this plays out in high-stakes situations
This Week's Challenge
Pick one decision you're confident about and actively seek out disagreement. Ask someone whose judgment you respect to argue against your idea.
Expert Insights From
Charles Duhigg (Supercommunicators) • Adam Grant • Patrick Lencioni
Connect with Colby
- Website: nxtstepadvisors.com
- LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/colbymorris
- Services: Executive coaching, team training, and keynote speaking
Series Complete
This concludes our 3-part Conflict IQ series. Subscribe for more leadership insights.
Tags: conflict IQ, leadership development, conflict resolution, team communication, psychological safety, productive disagreement, leadership courage
Category: Business
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
People First.
Leadership, actionablestrategies, real results this is
Things Leaders Do with ColbyMorris.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Here's a question that might make you
uncomfortable when was the lasttime you actually asked someone
to disagree with you Not justany questions at the end of a
meeting, not let me know if youhave any concerns?
I mean literally looked someonein the eye and said I need you
to tell me what I'm gettingwrong here.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
(00:32):
Most leaders spend their entirecareers trying to avoid
conflict and then wonder whytheir teams never bring them the
truth until it's too late.
Hey, leaders, I'm Colby Morris,and this is Things Leaders Do.
We're wrapping up our ConflictIQ series with something that
separates good leaders fromgreat ones the ability to invite
(00:54):
conflict instead of avoiding it.
Over the past two episodes,we've talked about why Conflict
IQ matters and how to spothidden conflict.
Today, we're going fulladvanced level how to become the
kind of leader people trustwith their disagreements, their
doubts and their difficulttruths.
Because here's what the bestleaders know Conflict isn't
(01:19):
something that happens to you.
It's something you can activelyinvite, shape and use to make
your team stronger.
Let's start with something thatmight blow your mind.
Okay, the most courageous thingyou can do as a leader isn't
making tough decisions orstanding firm in difficult
(01:40):
situations, the most courageousthing you can do is make
yourself vulnerable to beingwrong.
Adam Grant talks about this inhis work on confident humility
the ability to be confident inyour capacity to learn while
being humble about what youcurrently know.
(02:01):
He says the best leaders arestrong opinions, loosely held
people who can advocatepassionately for their ideas
while remaining genuinelycurious about why they might be
mistaken.
Think about that for a second.
Most leaders try to projectcertainty because they think
that's what leadership lookslike.
But the leaders who actuallyget the best results, they're
(02:22):
the ones brave enough to sayhere's what I think, now tell me
what I looks like.
But the leaders who actuallyget the best results, they're
the ones brave enough to sayhere's what I think, now tell me
what I'm missing.
Patrick Lencioni puts it thisway real leadership courage
isn't about having all theanswers.
It's about creating anenvironment where the best
answers can emerge from anywhereon the team.
Here's where most leaders getstuck anywhere on the team.
(02:47):
Here's where most leaders getstuck.
They want the benefits of opendialogue without the
vulnerability of actually beingchallenged.
They want their teams to speakup, but only if what they're
saying is supportive and helpfuland doesn't require the leader
to change their mind aboutanything important.
That's not inviting conflict.
That's inviting agreement withextra steps.
(03:09):
Charles Duhigg's research onsuper communicators, which is
also his new book, revealssomething fascinating about how
the best communicators handledisagreement.
They don't try to eliminateconflict, they try to make it
more productive.
See, duhigg found that supercommunicators have this ability
to match the type ofconversation that's actually
(03:31):
needed.
Sometimes people need to shareemotions.
Sometimes they need to exchangeinformation.
Sometimes they need tonegotiate solutions.
The magic happens wheneveryone's in the same
conversation mode.
Here's how this applies toinviting conflict.
Most leaders approachdisagreement like it's always a
(03:54):
problem-solving conversation.
Someone raises a concern andimmediately we jump to okay, how
do we fix this?
But sometimes the persondisagreeing with you isn't
looking for solutions yet.
Sometimes they need to be heardemotionally first.
Sometimes they need to sharemore information.
Sometimes they're trying tonegotiate priorities.
Super communicators figure outwhat kind of conversation is
(04:18):
actually happening and meetpeople there first before they
try to drive towards aresolution.
I learned this lesson with ateam member who kept pushing
back on our project timelines.
My instinct was to immediatelysolve the timeline problem.
But when I finally asked hey,help me understand what's really
concerning you here?
(04:39):
I discovered it wasn't aboutthe timeline at all.
It was about quality standardsand her fear that we were
sacrificing excellence for speed.
Once I understood we werehaving a values conversation,
not a logistics conversation.
Everything changed conversation.
Everything changed.
We found solutions that honoredboth speed and quality, but
(05:09):
only after I stopped trying tofix the wrong problem.
So what does it actually soundlike when you invite conflict?
Because this isn't just beingopen to disagreement, it's about
actively encouraging it withspecific, intentional language.
Here are some phrases thatactually work.
Instead of asking any questions, try, what am I not seeing here
(05:31):
?
Instead of let me know if youhave any concerns, this is my
favorite Try.
I need someone to poke holes inthis idea.
Ah, that's brilliant.
I need someone to poke holes inthis idea.
Look, if you don't get anythingelse from this podcast, write
that down.
And then, third, instead ofdoes everyone agree?
(05:52):
Try, who thinks this won't workand why?
See the difference?
The first set of phrases allowspeople to stay quiet and still
be compliant.
The second set activelyrequests disagreement.
Adam Grant talks about the powerof perspective-taking.
Requests explicitly askingpeople to share viewpoints that
(06:16):
are different from yours.
Questions like what wouldsomeone who disagrees with me
say about this?
Or if you were arguing againstthis proposal, what would be
your strongest points?
That is good, those are great,but here's the key you have to
(06:37):
actually want to hear theanswers.
People can sense when you'regoing through the motions versus
when you're genuinely curiousabout their perspective.
Again, patrick Lencioniemphasizes that this isn't just
about asking better questions.
It's about responding betterwhen people actually do disagree
with you.
The first few times someonetakes you up on your invitation
(07:00):
to conflict, your responsedetermines whether they'll ever
do it again.
If someone challenges your ideaand you immediately get
defensive or explain why they'rewrong or dismiss their concern,
congratulations.
You've just trained your entireteam that your invitation to
conflict are fake.
You've just trained your entireteam that your invitation to
(07:22):
conflict are fake.
Inviting conflict isn't it isn'tjust about individual
conversations.
It's about creating systematicsafety for disagreements
throughout your team culture.
Okay, here's what that lookslike in practice.
You need to start meetings withpermission to disagree.
Okay, I'm going to say thatagain.
Start meetings with permissionsto disagree, Not just once, but
(07:48):
consistently.
Say something like hey y'all,before we dive in, I want to
remind everyone that the bestdecisions come from the best
debate.
I need you to challengeassumptions, including mine.
And then I want you tocelebrate productive
disagreement publicly.
When someone raises a concernthat leads to a better solution,
(08:11):
acknowledge it in front of theteam.
Jennifer's pushback on thetimeline helped us avoid a major
problem.
That's exactly the kind ofthinking we need more of.
Good job, jennifer.
And then model intellectualhumility yourself.
Change your mind publicly.
(08:32):
When someone presents a betteridea, say something like I was
wrong about this, or hey, sarahconvinced me there's a better
approach.
Again, duhigg's research showsthat psychological safety it
isn't just about being nice okay.
It's about creatingenvironments where people could
take interpersonal risk withoutfear of negative consequences
(08:55):
and disagreeing with the boss.
That is a big interpersonalrisk.
And then I want you to createdevil's advocate roles Y'all.
I know I said write that downearlier, but you need to write
this one down to create devil'sadvocate roles formally assigned
someone to argue againstproposals and important meetings
.
You heard me right.
(09:17):
Assign someone that's going toargue against the proposals and
important meetings Okay, meright.
Assign someone that's going toargue against the proposals in
important meetings Okay.
This isn't about being negative.
It's about institutionalizingthe critical thinking that leads
to better decisions and thenuse pre-mortems regularly.
Before launching any significantinitiative, gather the team up
(09:38):
and ask all right, let's imaginethis project failed
spectacularly.
What went wrong?
This gives people permission tovoice concerns before they
become reality.
Let me tell you about two CEOsI worked with who faced almost
identical situations but handledthem completely differently.
(10:00):
Ceo number one let's call himRobert.
Robert was preparing to launch anew product line.
He'd done his research, hebuilt his business case and was
confident in his strategy.
In the final leadership teammeeting before launch, he
presented his plan and asked forfeedback.
One person raised a concernabout market timing.
(10:22):
Robert listened politely thenexplained why the timing was
actually perfect.
Someone else questioned thepricing strategy.
Robert walked through hisanalysis showing why the price
point was optimal.
And a third person worriedabout resource allocation, but
Robert showed how they hadeverything covered.
By the end of the meeting,everyone was aligned.
(10:45):
The launch moved forward.
Six months later, that productline was discontinued Six months
.
Every concern his team raisedin that meeting turned out to be
valid.
Okay, but Robert had been sofocused on defending his
decisions that he missed theopportunity to improve them.
Now let's contrast that withCEO number two, and we'll call
(11:10):
her.
Lisa, lisa similar situation,similar stakes, similar
confidence in her strategy.
But Lisa approached that finalmeeting differently.
She started the meeting bysaying I'm convinced this is the
right move, but I could bewrong.
This is the right move, but Icould be wrong.
I need you to try to convinceme, otherwise, what am I missing
(11:31):
?
What are the weak spots?
And if you were betting yourown money, what would worry you
the most?
And then here's the crucialpart when people raise concerns,
lisa didn't immediately counterthem.
She asked follow-up questions.
She explored the implications.
Follow-up questions sheexplored the implications.
(11:53):
She treated each concern asvaluable intelligence, not as
resistance that she had toovercome.
The conversation was messier,it took a lot longer and it
required Lisa to admituncertainty about parts of her
plan.
But by the end of that meetingshe had a stronger strategy.
Okay, they adjust the timing,refine the pricing, reallocated
(12:14):
resources based on those teams'insights.
And Lisa's product launch wasone of the most successful in
the company's history.
The difference wasn't thequality of the original strategy
Okay, both leaders had donegood work.
The difference was that Roberttreated the meeting like a
presentation, where the goal isapproval, while Lisa treated it
(12:36):
like a collaboration, where thegoal was the best possible
decision.
So here's your challenge forthis week.
I want you to think of this aslet's call it leadership
strength training.
You're building your conflictcourage muscles and, like any
muscle, they get stronger withintentional practice.
(12:57):
So first, I want you to pickone decision you're confident
about and actively seek outdisagreement.
Find someone whose judgment yourespect and say hey, I need you
to argue against this idea.
What would you say if you weretrying to convince me this was a
mistake?
And don't just listen politely,engage with their arguments,
(13:19):
ask and follow-up questions, trythe implications, explore them,
see if their perspectivechanges or if it strengthens
your original thinking or if itstrengthens your original
thinking.
And then, second we mentionedthis earlier start your next
team meeting with explicitpermission to disagree.
Try something like hey guys, thegoal of this meeting isn't to
(13:42):
agree with me, it's to find thebest solution.
I need you to challengeassumptions, push back on ideas
and help us think throughpotential problems.
And then here's the crucialpart when someone actually does
disagree with you, your responsein that moment determines
whether this becomes a realcultural shift or just nice
(14:04):
words that nobody believes.
And then, third, I want you topractice changing your mind
publicly.
This week, find one opinion youhold that someone else has
helped you reconsider and thenshare that with your team.
Hey, I've been thinking aboutwhat Sarah said last week.
She convinced me that there's abetter approach to this problem
(14:26):
.
This isn't about being, you know, wishy-washy.
It's about modelingintellectual humility.
It's about showing your teamthat changing your mind based on
new information is a strength,not a weakness.
So here's my question for youto wrap up this Conflict IQ
series what would your teamaccomplish if people felt
(14:48):
completely safe telling you thetruth?
Think about all the problemsthat could be solved earlier,
all the opportunities that couldbe seized faster, all the
innovations that could emerge ifpeople weren't tiptoeing around
your ego or your assumptions.
The courage to invite conflictisn't just about being a better
(15:09):
leader.
It's about unleashing the fullpotential of everyone around you
, because the best ideas don'talways come from the person with
the highest title.
Yeah, I'm going to say that oneagain.
Because the best ideas don'talways come from the person with
the highest title.
They come from the team that'sbrave enough to disagree,
curious enough to explore andthey're trusting enough to tell
(15:31):
each other the truth.
Adam Grant puts it perfectly.
The mark of higher intelligenceis the ability to think like
your opponents, not the abilityto dismiss them.
Leaders, if you are ready totake your leadership to the next
level and you want personalizedsupport developing these skills
(15:54):
, I'm available for executivecoaching, team training, keynote
speaking.
You name it and again, you canfind me at nextstepadvisorscom.
There's no E in nextnextstepadvisorscom.
I want to thank you for joiningme in this Conflict IQ series
Next week.
We're starting somethingcompletely new, but the
foundations we built here theability to navigate tension,
(16:18):
surface truth and build trustthrough disagreement that
foundation that will serve youin every leadership challenge
you face.
So thank you again forlistening to Things Leaders Do
face.
So thank you again forlistening to Things Leaders Do.
Remember to keep invitingconflict, keep embracing truth
and building teams courageousenough to challenge each other.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
And you know why?
Because those are the thingsthat leaders do.
Thank you for listening toThings Leaders Do.
If you're looking for more tipson how to be a better leader,
be sure to subscribe to thepodcast and listen to next
week's episode.
Until next time, keep workingon being a better leader by
doing the things that leaders do.
People First.
Leadership, actionablestrategies, real results this is
Things Leaders Do with ColbyMorris.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Here's a question that might make you
uncomfortable when was the lasttime you actually asked someone
to disagree with you Not justany questions at the end of a
meeting, not let me know if youhave any concerns?
I mean literally looked someonein the eye and said I need you
to tell me what I'm gettingwrong here.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
(00:32):
Most leaders spend their entirecareers trying to avoid
conflict and then wonder whytheir teams never bring them the
truth until it's too late.
Hey, leaders, I'm Colby Morris,and this is Things Leaders Do.
We're wrapping up our ConflictIQ series with something that
separates good leaders fromgreat ones the ability to invite
(00:54):
conflict instead of avoiding it.
Over the past two episodes,we've talked about why Conflict
IQ matters and how to spothidden conflict.
Today, we're going fulladvanced level how to become the
kind of leader people trustwith their disagreements, their
doubts and their difficulttruths.
Because here's what the bestleaders know Conflict isn't
(01:19):
something that happens to you.
It's something you can activelyinvite, shape and use to make
your team stronger.
Let's start with something thatmight blow your mind.
Okay, the most courageous thingyou can do as a leader isn't
making tough decisions orstanding firm in difficult
(01:40):
situations, the most courageousthing you can do is make
yourself vulnerable to beingwrong.
Adam Grant talks about this inhis work on confident humility
the ability to be confident inyour capacity to learn while
being humble about what youcurrently know.
(02:01):
He says the best leaders arestrong opinions, loosely held
people who can advocatepassionately for their ideas
while remaining genuinelycurious about why they might be
mistaken.
Think about that for a second.
Most leaders try to projectcertainty because they think
that's what leadership lookslike.
But the leaders who actuallyget the best results, they're
(02:22):
the ones brave enough to sayhere's what I think, now tell me
what I looks like.
But the leaders who actuallyget the best results, they're
the ones brave enough to sayhere's what I think, now tell me
what I'm missing.
Patrick Lencioni puts it thisway real leadership courage
isn't about having all theanswers.
It's about creating anenvironment where the best
answers can emerge from anywhereon the team.
Here's where most leaders getstuck anywhere on the team.
(02:47):
Here's where most leaders getstuck.
They want the benefits of opendialogue without the
vulnerability of actually beingchallenged.
They want their teams to speakup, but only if what they're
saying is supportive and helpfuland doesn't require the leader
to change their mind aboutanything important.
That's not inviting conflict.
That's inviting agreement withextra steps.
(03:09):
Charles Duhigg's research onsuper communicators, which is
also his new book, revealssomething fascinating about how
the best communicators handledisagreement.
They don't try to eliminateconflict, they try to make it
more productive.
See, duhigg found that supercommunicators have this ability
to match the type ofconversation that's actually
(03:31):
needed.
Sometimes people need to shareemotions.
Sometimes they need to exchangeinformation.
Sometimes they need tonegotiate solutions.
The magic happens wheneveryone's in the same
conversation mode.
Here's how this applies toinviting conflict.
Most leaders approachdisagreement like it's always a
(03:54):
problem-solving conversation.
Someone raises a concern andimmediately we jump to okay, how
do we fix this?
But sometimes the persondisagreeing with you isn't
looking for solutions yet.
Sometimes they need to be heardemotionally first.
Sometimes they need to sharemore information.
Sometimes they're trying tonegotiate priorities.
Super communicators figure outwhat kind of conversation is
(04:18):
actually happening and meetpeople there first before they
try to drive towards aresolution.
I learned this lesson with ateam member who kept pushing
back on our project timelines.
My instinct was to immediatelysolve the timeline problem.
But when I finally asked hey,help me understand what's really
concerning you here?
(04:39):
I discovered it wasn't aboutthe timeline at all.
It was about quality standardsand her fear that we were
sacrificing excellence for speed.
Once I understood we werehaving a values conversation,
not a logistics conversation.
Everything changed conversation.
Everything changed.
We found solutions that honoredboth speed and quality, but
(05:09):
only after I stopped trying tofix the wrong problem.
So what does it actually soundlike when you invite conflict?
Because this isn't just beingopen to disagreement, it's about
actively encouraging it withspecific, intentional language.
Here are some phrases thatactually work.
Instead of asking any questions, try, what am I not seeing here
(05:31):
?
Instead of let me know if youhave any concerns, this is my
favorite Try.
I need someone to poke holes inthis idea.
Ah, that's brilliant.
I need someone to poke holes inthis idea.
Look, if you don't get anythingelse from this podcast, write
that down.
And then, third, instead ofdoes everyone agree?
(05:52):
Try, who thinks this won't workand why?
See the difference?
The first set of phrases allowspeople to stay quiet and still
be compliant.
The second set activelyrequests disagreement.
Adam Grant talks about the powerof perspective-taking.
Requests explicitly askingpeople to share viewpoints that
(06:16):
are different from yours.
Questions like what wouldsomeone who disagrees with me
say about this?
Or if you were arguing againstthis proposal, what would be
your strongest points?
That is good, those are great,but here's the key you have to
(06:37):
actually want to hear theanswers.
People can sense when you'regoing through the motions versus
when you're genuinely curiousabout their perspective.
Again, patrick Lencioniemphasizes that this isn't just
about asking better questions.
It's about responding betterwhen people actually do disagree
with you.
The first few times someonetakes you up on your invitation
(07:00):
to conflict, your responsedetermines whether they'll ever
do it again.
If someone challenges your ideaand you immediately get
defensive or explain why they'rewrong or dismiss their concern,
congratulations.
You've just trained your entireteam that your invitation to
conflict are fake.
You've just trained your entireteam that your invitation to
(07:22):
conflict are fake.
Inviting conflict isn't it isn'tjust about individual
conversations.
It's about creating systematicsafety for disagreements
throughout your team culture.
Okay, here's what that lookslike in practice.
You need to start meetings withpermission to disagree.
Okay, I'm going to say thatagain.
Start meetings with permissionsto disagree, Not just once, but
(07:48):
consistently.
Say something like hey y'all,before we dive in, I want to
remind everyone that the bestdecisions come from the best
debate.
I need you to challengeassumptions, including mine.
And then I want you tocelebrate productive
disagreement publicly.
When someone raises a concernthat leads to a better solution,
(08:11):
acknowledge it in front of theteam.
Jennifer's pushback on thetimeline helped us avoid a major
problem.
That's exactly the kind ofthinking we need more of.
Good job, jennifer.
And then model intellectualhumility yourself.
Change your mind publicly.
(08:32):
When someone presents a betteridea, say something like I was
wrong about this, or hey, sarahconvinced me there's a better
approach.
Again, duhigg's research showsthat psychological safety it
isn't just about being nice okay.
It's about creatingenvironments where people could
take interpersonal risk withoutfear of negative consequences
(08:55):
and disagreeing with the boss.
That is a big interpersonalrisk.
And then I want you to createdevil's advocate roles Y'all.
I know I said write that downearlier, but you need to write
this one down to create devil'sadvocate roles formally assigned
someone to argue againstproposals and important meetings
.
You heard me right.
(09:17):
Assign someone that's going toargue against the proposals and
important meetings Okay, meright.
Assign someone that's going toargue against the proposals in
important meetings Okay.
This isn't about being negative.
It's about institutionalizingthe critical thinking that leads
to better decisions and thenuse pre-mortems regularly.
Before launching any significantinitiative, gather the team up
(09:38):
and ask all right, let's imaginethis project failed
spectacularly.
What went wrong?
This gives people permission tovoice concerns before they
become reality.
Let me tell you about two CEOsI worked with who faced almost
identical situations but handledthem completely differently.
(10:00):
Ceo number one let's call himRobert.
Robert was preparing to launch anew product line.
He'd done his research, hebuilt his business case and was
confident in his strategy.
In the final leadership teammeeting before launch, he
presented his plan and asked forfeedback.
One person raised a concernabout market timing.
(10:22):
Robert listened politely thenexplained why the timing was
actually perfect.
Someone else questioned thepricing strategy.
Robert walked through hisanalysis showing why the price
point was optimal.
And a third person worriedabout resource allocation, but
Robert showed how they hadeverything covered.
By the end of the meeting,everyone was aligned.
(10:45):
The launch moved forward.
Six months later, that productline was discontinued Six months
.
Every concern his team raisedin that meeting turned out to be
valid.
Okay, but Robert had been sofocused on defending his
decisions that he missed theopportunity to improve them.
Now let's contrast that withCEO number two, and we'll call
(11:10):
her.
Lisa, lisa similar situation,similar stakes, similar
confidence in her strategy.
But Lisa approached that finalmeeting differently.
She started the meeting bysaying I'm convinced this is the
right move, but I could bewrong.
This is the right move, but Icould be wrong.
I need you to try to convinceme, otherwise, what am I missing
(11:31):
?
What are the weak spots?
And if you were betting yourown money, what would worry you
the most?
And then here's the crucialpart when people raise concerns,
lisa didn't immediately counterthem.
She asked follow-up questions.
She explored the implications.
Follow-up questions sheexplored the implications.
(11:53):
She treated each concern asvaluable intelligence, not as
resistance that she had toovercome.
The conversation was messier,it took a lot longer and it
required Lisa to admituncertainty about parts of her
plan.
But by the end of that meetingshe had a stronger strategy.
Okay, they adjust the timing,refine the pricing, reallocated
(12:14):
resources based on those teams'insights.
And Lisa's product launch wasone of the most successful in
the company's history.
The difference wasn't thequality of the original strategy
Okay, both leaders had donegood work.
The difference was that Roberttreated the meeting like a
presentation, where the goal isapproval, while Lisa treated it
(12:36):
like a collaboration, where thegoal was the best possible
decision.
So here's your challenge forthis week.
I want you to think of this aslet's call it leadership
strength training.
You're building your conflictcourage muscles and, like any
muscle, they get stronger withintentional practice.
(12:57):
So first, I want you to pickone decision you're confident
about and actively seek outdisagreement.
Find someone whose judgment yourespect and say hey, I need you
to argue against this idea.
What would you say if you weretrying to convince me this was a
mistake?
And don't just listen politely,engage with their arguments,
(13:19):
ask and follow-up questions, trythe implications, explore them,
see if their perspectivechanges or if it strengthens
your original thinking or if itstrengthens your original
thinking.
And then, second we mentionedthis earlier start your next
team meeting with explicitpermission to disagree.
Try something like hey guys, thegoal of this meeting isn't to
(13:42):
agree with me, it's to find thebest solution.
I need you to challengeassumptions, push back on ideas
and help us think throughpotential problems.
And then here's the crucialpart when someone actually does
disagree with you, your responsein that moment determines
whether this becomes a realcultural shift or just nice
(14:04):
words that nobody believes.
And then, third, I want you topractice changing your mind
publicly.
This week, find one opinion youhold that someone else has
helped you reconsider and thenshare that with your team.
Hey, I've been thinking aboutwhat Sarah said last week.
She convinced me that there's abetter approach to this problem
(14:26):
.
This isn't about being, you know, wishy-washy.
It's about modelingintellectual humility.
It's about showing your teamthat changing your mind based on
new information is a strength,not a weakness.
So here's my question for youto wrap up this Conflict IQ
series what would your teamaccomplish if people felt
(14:48):
completely safe telling you thetruth?
Think about all the problemsthat could be solved earlier,
all the opportunities that couldbe seized faster, all the
innovations that could emerge ifpeople weren't tiptoeing around
your ego or your assumptions.
The courage to invite conflictisn't just about being a better
(15:09):
leader.
It's about unleashing the fullpotential of everyone around you
, because the best ideas don'talways come from the person with
the highest title.
Yeah, I'm going to say that oneagain.
Because the best ideas don'talways come from the person with
the highest title.
They come from the team that'sbrave enough to disagree,
curious enough to explore andthey're trusting enough to tell
(15:31):
each other the truth.
Adam Grant puts it perfectly.
The mark of higher intelligenceis the ability to think like
your opponents, not the abilityto dismiss them.
Leaders, if you are ready totake your leadership to the next
level and you want personalizedsupport developing these skills
(15:54):
, I'm available for executivecoaching, team training, keynote
speaking.
You name it and again, you canfind me at nextstepadvisorscom.
There's no E in nextnextstepadvisorscom.
I want to thank you for joiningme in this Conflict IQ series
Next week.
We're starting somethingcompletely new, but the
foundations we built here theability to navigate tension,
(16:18):
surface truth and build trustthrough disagreement that
foundation that will serve youin every leadership challenge
you face.
So thank you again forlistening to Things Leaders Do
face.
So thank you again forlistening to Things Leaders Do.
Remember to keep invitingconflict, keep embracing truth
and building teams courageousenough to challenge each other.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
And you know why?
Because those are the thingsthat leaders do.
Thank you for listening toThings Leaders Do.
If you're looking for more tipson how to be a better leader,
be sure to subscribe to thepodcast and listen to next
week's episode.
Until next time, keep workingon being a better leader by
doing the things that leaders do.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Herd with Colin Cowherd
The Herd with Colin Cowherd is a thought-provoking, opinionated, and topic-driven journey through the top sports stories of the day.